A documentary by Amir Bar-Lev. My conclusion: hoax. I predict in years to come the explanation: "It was the essence of Marla in the paintings." Oh. I guess it is similar to automatic writing. The spirit of Marla was painting. Marla was the inspiration. "We have the best interests of Marla in mind," they explain and it serves as an excuse for the fraud. So that when the hoax is exposed, it is somewhat acceptable in a convoluted way.
I just don't buy it. Why? Because the camera never catches her painting anything. It is indeed a mystery. And who was her "ghost painter?" I would bet it's the dad. The kid will spill the beans eventually. They place a concealed camera and she pushes the paint around. Her dad is present during the sessions and her dad "coaches" her and sometimes sternly. The giveaway: ""Hey daddy its your turn. I'm done painting." "You have to tell me what to do now."
Good grief. I have a bridge I want to sell you if you believe Marla Olmstead is a child prodigy. There will one day be an investigation. It just started out as a cute shtik and it snowballed and got way out of hand. That kid would have trouble coloring wth crayolas and staying in the lines. I think "60 Minutes" knew the deal.... but what the heck. Go with the story. It's human interest. Dad reminds me of Clifford Irving. He won't budge an inch. They will be busted, eventually. And by the way, who titled: "Ode to Pollack?" I prefer Tillamook Cheddar.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/nyregion/28artist.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment